DISCUSSION ON TWO PRECEDING PAPERS. 211 
the wharf and put that equipment in—and it would be guaranteed to do these things 
which I have stated, and if it did not do them, the equipment could be lifted out 
again and the old engines put back in their place, and no harm done. The same 
applies to the battleship proposition. ‘This same applies to the Collier Jupiter, 
which we are equipping. If this equipment does not do all things we promised, it 
will be replaced with reciprocating engines. 
No superheat is considered in connection with any of these propositions. They 
are on the saturated steam basis, and the same boiler pressure which is needed for 
reciprocating engines. 
Srk WILLIAM HENRY WHITE:—Mr. Emmet, will you kindly say if your price 
assumed that the propeller shaft and propeller remained? 
Mr. Emmet :—That is the price for replacing the engine alone, nothing but the 
engine. 
Mr. LovEKIN:—In reply to the remarks of Sir William Henry White on the 
question of superheat—I said nothing about superheat—in fact I was not through 
with my remarks when interrupted, I can say however that with steam having 92 
per cent. moisture, I have figured out the consumption of a Stumpf unit in com- 
bination with a low pressure turbine and find that a water rate of about 10.5 pounds 
can be guaranteed. I base that largely on my experience with the battleship 
Michigan engines, which were designed previous to the Delaware, and which are 
somewhat similar, the Delaware has a water rate of 12.5. This is indisputable. 
Now if the Delaware has 12.5, as against 16 to 20 pounds which all the previous 
battleships’ engines have had, and we attach a low pressure turbine to this engine, 
we should also get a water rate of 10.5, with the use of superheat. 
Mr. Dickie (Communicated) :—Being unable to be present and take part in 
the discussion on my paper, I find it necessary to communicate what I would have 
liked to have said. In regard to Mr. Monteagle’s criticism of my proposal to use a 
four cylinder compound engine on the central shaft instead of a three cylinder triple 
expansion engine, the question of a particular type of reciprocating engine is really 
no part of the discussion as to the best arrangement for combined reciprocating and 
turbine engines on steamships, but only my own opinion of the simplest form of 
reciprocating engine to use in the arrangement I propose. I did not propose any 
increase in the initial pressure of 195 pounds to 205 pounds absolute, and at that 
pressure exhausting at 30 pounds absolute the type of engine I indicated would give 
good economical results. 
Mr. Monteagle’s second criticism on the omission of the backing turbine, which 
he believes should be prohibited. In the arrangement I proposed there was about 
60 per cent. of the total power available for backing and that is more than is usually 
provided in turbine ships. What Mr. Monteagle would prohibit would apply to 
all single screw ships and would put out of commission at least 75 per cent. of all the 
steamships afloat. 
